The devil is in the details.
An examination of Schwartz’s defensive scheme and it’s impact on the front 4.
Common traits & core philosophy
Schwartz describes the LB’s as being of the “downhill” type. I think it’s safe to categorize the whole defense that way. Schwartz has also defined their defense as “coming in waves, sort of like punt coverage”. The key is that each player has their responsibility in front of them, where they are in constant attack mode. Their ears are pinned and they’re headed full-speed toward their target.
Defensive End: reasoning behind the wide 9
Role
#1 Set the edge / Contain
#2 Rush the QB
The roles are in order of importance (opposite what you might expect from a 4-3 DE). Their responsibility for the outside boundary is absolutely crucial to our scheme. They form the top edge of our “funnel”, allowing our “downhill” style LB’s to keep the play in front of them. Other 4-3 schemes, as with our very own T2 version a few years ago, assign this responsibility to the LB’s. That’s where the “sideline to sideline” speed of our LB’s were so crucial before, and why they were faster than they were big. Our DE pick a spot on the field where the QB is likely going to be and blaze to that spot as quick as they can. In lining up wide, and playing the pass first, they essentially cut off the outside running lane on their way to the QB. (“Stopping the run on the way to the QB”, as they’ve defined it.) They’re also putting massive pressure on the OT to quickly get to his defensive position,
Type
Our DE’s body type doesn’t quite mesh with what we might think a typical DE should be. They should be quicker than they are big. One thing that troubles OT’s more than anything is speed. Yes, there are unique players with unique abilities that trump even the fastest DE, but as a “type” player that can continually be added to our system, our DE’s need to be fast. Another characteristic is long arms. Really, long arms is important for all linemen, just for establishing leverage and keeping the opponent off of them. What we continue to see is how effective KVB, Avril, Jackson and now Young are in beating the OT and getting a hand on the ball. That’s 1 failed 1st rounder, a 2nd, a 3rd and a 7th. As integral as the DE spot is, their success isn’t contingent upon unique ability, rather a specific “type” that can be repeated.
Defensive Tackle: Over-Under, take your shot
Role
#1 Destroy the pocket
#2 Sack the QB
#3 Stop the run
This is our biggest departure from any norm in the NFL… There’s a lot to take in here, as it’s not just play, but also where we start to see the “moneyball” part of Jim Schwartz show up. There is an emphasis on taking away the space where the QB would be allowed to set his feet and pass. Schwartz knows pressure is coming from the outside… he knows his linebackers are in position to see the play develop in front of them while pursuing the ball… he has DB’s that are adequate against both the pass and the run. In essence, he has insurance all over the field which allows his 2 DT’s to take the feet out from under the QB.
A lot of focus has been placed on the running lanes that have been opened up in recent games. My guess is that, privately, Jim Schwartz is saying “what took them so long?”. While it’s been referred to as “bend, don’t break”, I think there’s a lot more to what’s going on here. In some systems, the bulk of the field (outside the red zone) is opened up simply due to space. As the players are confined, so then the defense has less field to cover. That’s “bend-don’t-break”. The offense has time and space to take their shots while the defense hopes they make a mistake, finally being able to rely on the boundaries of the red zone to provide some relief after the offense has marched down. Tampa 2 relied on that and it worked. We are not in that type scheme, instead we are the aggressors on defense. Instead of laying back, keeping the plays in front of us and playing a sort of zone or “prevent”, we’re keeping things in front of us only in the sense that we can see what we’re going to hit. We’re not giving up yards to an opponent that has the time and space to pick us apart, we’re giving up yards because we’re taking shots of our own. We’re using the 80 yards outside of our red zone to attack… to try to generate turn-overs, to take the QB completely out of his comfort zone. We’re not bending down the field, we’re gambling down the field. Right now, after 8 games, Detroit is #3 in take-aways. We’re actually #1 in net take-aways, which highlights Schwartz’s emphasis on “taking care of the ball”. The Schwartz defense is specifically targeting the QB with the expectation of generating turnovers, knowing that he who wins the turnover game is most likely to win the game. Another stat that clues us into our defense’s abilities is the opponents 3rd down percentage, which is only 29% (best in the NFL). When it’s time to take off the track shoes and put on the cleats, our defense stands among the best in the NFL against the run. The biggest difference from snap to snap is what our DT’s are told to do. The rest of the defense has it’s formations as well, but the two in the middle have the largest impact.
A note on 4-3 formations:
Within a 4-3, you can have either an “Over” front or and “Under” front. The difference is where the 2 DT’s are aligned. We’ll actually line up as both.
Our “Over” front has Suh lined up as a 3-tech over the RG, while Williams tries to shoot between the Center and LG in the 1-tech spot.
Our “Under” front usually involves Sammie Lee Hill at the 3-tech, who is now lined up over the LG while Suh, Fairley or Fluellen take 1-tech duty, drawing the double-team between the Center and RG. This formation puts Hill in the exact same spot that Haynesworth and Sapp made all their money.
Why the change? Can’t say for sure, other than I believe we’re simply trying to put each player in the best spot to make a play. Why is Fairley lining up as a 1-tech in a 4-3 under front almost exclusively? Why has Hill moved over to the 3-tech spot where he’s almost guaranteed one-on-one against the LG? Why isn’t Suh ever lined up in the spot where Sapp and Haynesworth made names for themselves? I believe the answer is simply an attempt to wear the offensive line down. We’re constantly attacking with a fresh rotation at at every gap along the line.
Type
Our DT’s are easy to define. Big, Strong, Quick-off-the-snap and Mean. Hill and Fluellen might not stand out as particularly cross, but when they put Suh, Fairley or Williams out there, they provide just enough nastiness to give the whole team an edge.
Summary
More than 3-4 or 4-3, our scheme is philosophy rather than alignment. It’s a scheme to take control of our own destiny, rather than slow an offense down.
I used to be preoccupied with the exact formation as an indicator of what type of players we might look to add to the roster. When Schwartz said we’d have a 4-3, I wondered what type. When he said his linebackers would be thumpers that play “downhill”, it still didn’t paint a clear picture. If I had to use a simple term (getting my Gruden on) for our defense, it’d be “4-3 Pressure”. The whole thing is predicated on getting to the QB and creating turnovers. We’re not simply taking on the personality of an old, salty cuss like Cunningham, we’re strategically trying to win the game on the defensive side of the ball by taking away the QB’s footing and creating turnovers. From the inside out and the outside in; taking calculated risks and aggressively disrupting the opponent.